Let's spend all the money the the U.S. funds in a given year to kill our race, and focus it on technology, what a f novel concept huh? Well I agree with you there...I don't know why you assume I'd be against that.

To put it in perspective if your scared..

I looked death in the face and laughed. You haven't seen what I've seen. You don't know where I've been.

Originally posted by allprowolfy
Hey take this prospective, lets kill the past, and focus on the future. Let's spend all the money the the U.S. funds in a given year to kill our
race, and focus it on technology, what a f novel concept huh?

Never happen. Once civil structure is gone, there's no need for high technology so we can all get fast email and play video games. No need to know
anything much more than what's in a 20-mile radius. And money? Hey, man, money is all imaginary these days, didn't you know that? Somebody pulls
a plug, and it's all gone! Whoosh!

You're right. A packet of seeds would be worth more than a bank full of money. And if I happened to have that packet of seeds and someone wanted to
take it off me they'd find out that it was worth more than their life as well. And if someone came into my little area of survival they'd need to
be able to talk fast and honest. There's no time to mess around when the worlds turned to anarchy.

Sad rebuttle, and I might add, very nice changing of my words, how did you do that? split my sentences with run-on sentences?

Sorry, man I have seen it all, so please do not scrutinize me, seen bones and flesh fly out of holes, worried about if my kids would see their dad?
However, I have never bent so low as to change the whole sentence structure of another mans sentence, and not have the back-bone, to voice my opinion
when he asked it of me?

There's ways to improve our current system, and take back control and give it to the people. Limiting campaign contributions from corporations to
politicians would be a step in the right direction.
Throwing out the entire system is over the top.

Therein lays the problem. How is it to be accomplished. There are various ways, but considering extreme circumstances I think a quick and iron fist
approach is necessary, so I am going to think in terms of expediting the entire thing as quick as possible.

Probably the most civil approach.
The government needs to step forward and admit to the true problem. The government needs to take charge and break off all relationships with
corporations. Seize all US assets of the largest monopolies break-up all divisions and auction off to US citizens. Use the auction proceeds for the
debt. Then however it needs to be done bring the entrenched corruption forward that is within our political infrastructure and deal with accordingly.
That new law just passed might be a good way to test it out.

The other way, not so civil but none the less an option on the table.

If the government does not feel they can do what needs to be done, then tell the citizens that they must step aside and this is something the citizens
must handle. Fair enough, they just need to point us in the right direction and have law enforcement stand down while we take over their empire. We
storm their businesses and shut them down and claim them as our own. Assume ownership and continue making products or providing the service. No need
to destroy anything, well some things will with out a doubt need to be bulldozed but that can be dealt with later.

So, why does everything have to come to fight club? Because that was what the OP based his thread off of, dum$%%^&.

Is that what your handlers and academia taught you that would happen if the TBTB where not in charge, you sound like a scared little child, not
knowing a future. You know there's a future where TPTB aren't in charge, and there isn't anarchy, right? Or do you only see in black and white?
And no, I do my own independent thinking. I know the future, and I also know you have no place in it. You won't be able to handle it.

Hey take this prospective, lets kill the past, and focus on the future. Because forgetting about the past has been so successful in the past...*expletive* If you want to improve the future, you better know the past
like the palm of your hand or you're going to make the same mistakes they made

Let's spend all the money the the U.S. funds in a given year to kill our race, and focus it on technology, what a f novel concept huh? it's not a novel idea, people have been saying it for years.

To put it in perspective if your scared jump in my pocket i will take care of you, as the rest of the human race needs to get its technology game on
and stop killing, and start producing: A highly efficient next generation, minus all the scared lil children and skeptics I don't see any suggestions from you besides "Anarchy is all I can think of." Anarchy is the solution for those who can't think of any real
solutions.

I only left out the parts of your posts that had no merit, and were disrespectful.
You're ignorant.
Is that better?

Originally posted by Blue Shift
For anybody who thinks anarchy would be good, could you be so kind as to leave the doors of your apartments (or flats) open during the looting so
I'll be able to "make my way in" and forcefully take the finest things you have for my own? Thanks oh so very much.

This is the whole point. We *need* laws, and if we wouldn't have laws, individual people would MAKE them for themselves.

There is only a problem: Many people are not "rational" and also not "moral". They fabricate their own rules, like "i have the right to steal
your stuff"...or "kill the other guy" for [insert whatever reason here]...out of pure egotism or jealousy (you have more money,
girls..whatever..)...or simply wanting what the other person has because he doesn't have it.

So do you think abandoning laws would be something good?

Anarchy by definition would be abandoning those laws which are "above" us telling us in a way what is right and what not (yes, we are not always
agreeing there what those laws tell us) - but you cannot simply abandon the laws while PEOPLE stay the same, driven by their deeper instincts.

It would just create more and more chaos, violence, murder etc..etc...so the Anarchy would simply not create anything positive, IMO...or only
"freedom" for individuals at cost of something else.

(If i have the "freedom" to go out and shoot whoever i want..i don't think that this can be desired

Originally posted by theovermensch
I can relate to Chuck Palahniuks 'Fight Club'. It says alot about how the modern world makes us impotent. Makes us feel imasculated. The modern
world makes us paralysed. The themes seem to blame consumerism materialism and commercialism. It is saying that by placing such importance on
material gain we are missing out on things that are real. We are missing what is good. It is saying that societies values are all out of whack and it
is difficult for those that are aware.

I agree with all that. But I think the book is wrong by suggesting that we need to compromise. Why cant we all be Tyler Durden? I like that Durden
does not care what comes after the rebellion. He does not fear it. He does not even plan for it. All he cares about is burning it to the ground.
Smashing it up.I think there is something awesome about that. Why should we be scared? Why should we pull back?. When do we break the cocoon?.

The most common defense of capitalism is that nothing else works. Well guess what? Capitalism isnt working. Upward mobility was a scam and all the
major players are basically bankrupt. Its time to roll the dice. The world is broken. Its not worth fixing the way it is. We must burn it down so that
we can rise from the ashes like the pheonix.

And is anarchy really so scary? I think the nanny/police state that most of us live in makes us even more emasculated. More impotent.More
paralysed.More locked up.Wouldnt it be kinda cool if you could challenge a guy to a duel and not have to worry about going to jail? In todays world we
are forced to allow others to dishonour us. To insult us. To disrespect us. Someone can be a jerk to you and you cant punch them in the face.And they
know it. It creates perfect conditions for jerks to breed. If jerks knew that they could get slapped with a duelling glove at any time there would be
alot less jerks.

We used to be hunters. We are missing something. Anarchy would give it back. We dont know pain. We are non participants,non combatants. We get a DNP..
We are not in the game. I would welcome anarchy and something real. Cavemen had something that we are missing if you ask me.

Anarchy could be good.

And it would be good if we were all like Tyler Durden. (not that we should join Project Mayhem,but we should all embrace our inner ubermensch )

edit on 14-12-2011 by theovermensch because: typo

edit on 14-12-2011 by theovermensch because: typo

edit on
14-12-2011 by theovermensch because: typo

Yes anarchy is scary because when there is no defined law people act as judge and jury.

People also become stupid animals when they are in packs.. a pack of angry stupid animals is more likely to hand out a death sentence to someone even
suspected of a crime.

People who tend to agree to this have nothing really to lose in the first place.

I think that is a silly thing to say.

I have plenty to lose.

Have you seen the new 'Planet of the Apes' movie? The best part is when they come to pick the ape up and take it home from the 'ape pound'. I love
that instead of going home to the nice easy life that he had he turns his back. The ape has pride,the ape has dignity. The ape basically says "[SNIP]
you!"

I think we need to have principles like the ape. We need to say [SNIP] you society! It might be easier to do nothing. To swallow our pride and take
societies hand. But society isnt right.

Originally posted by Blue Shift
For anybody who thinks anarchy would be good, could you be so kind as to leave the doors of your apartments (or flats) open during the looting so
I'll be able to "make my way in" and forcefully take the finest things you have for my own? Thanks oh so very much.

People who tend to agree to this have nothing really to lose in the first place.

I think that is a silly thing to say.

I have plenty to lose.

Have you seen the new 'Planet of the Apes' movie? The best part is when they come to pick the ape up and take it home from the 'ape pound'. I love
that instead of going home to the nice easy life that he had he turns his back. The ape has pride,the ape has dignity. The ape basically says "[SNIP]
you!"

I think we need to have principles like the ape. We need to say [SNIP] you society! It might be easier to do nothing. To swallow our pride and take
societies hand. But society isnt right.

I say [SNIP] you society.

And here I was thinking that Caesar would have preferd to go home in his heart but couldn't leave the other apes behind because he knew that they
needed a leader to change their lives.

What I saw was an ape that stopped the other apes from getting out of hand as he kept interefering when they'd attack a human. That's called stopping
the anarchy. If you look at the movie there is no anarchy but a plan and a direction. It's not about mob rule.

Also I think the best part of the movie and the part that gets the greatest point across is when he says "NO!" for the first time.

I Guess it depends on the mentality of the observer as to what you read into it.

Also the mentality of the ape is actually a human mentality which is what makes the story appealing to us mere humans.

Also what would you do if you lead a revolt and then the other humans said to you [SNIP] you if you tried to stop it turning into anarchy? And the
other humans would tell you what you can do with yourself.

Poilice aren't perfect and there are power trippers and bad apples. However it would be ridiculous to think that we don't need the police. There's
just to many of us to not have some official body policing the laws. Also what's your other option? If the police start to fail and can't regulate
society then it's left up to the defence force. There's a very good reason why the police are parra-military and not military.

Text And here I was thinking that Caesar would have preferd to go home in his heart but couldn't leave the other apes behind because he knew that
they needed a leader to change their lives.

Yeah,I guess we saw that differently. I didnt think he did want to go home because he saw Francos character differently after what had happened and
what he had learned. But yeah,I agree he definatly rejected what he used to be and embraced his inner ape. I kinda thought he was changing allegiances
because he saw things more clearly. Not because of compassion. But yeah, might be my mentality.

Text Also what would you do if you lead a revolt and then the other humans said to you [SNIP] you if you tried to stop it turning into anarchy? And
the other humans would tell you what you can do with yourself.

Poilice aren't perfect and there are power trippers and bad apples. However it would be ridiculous to think that we don't need the police. There's
just to many of us to not have some official body policing the laws. Also what's your other option? If the police start to fail and can't regulate
society then it's left up to the defence force. There's a very good reason why the police are parra-military and not military.

edit on
15-12-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)

I think most of the police are not needed. From the thread I decided that in my opinion, swat teams and intelligence type stuff are needed. But the
average revenue raising cop that we see are not needed.

And I would like to see the army used in a way that was some use to the general public. Why dont they police us? Why do we have such a waste of a
standing army that does almost nothing of use. The Armed Forces cost the taxpayer alot in peace times for little return.

Your anarchy is complete chaos or returning back to a creature state, where we'd be free as animals and kill each other for food or territory. To do
that would be to deny your own reason and awareness; to spit on your own intelligence and creativity.

Unfortunately, because of proximity, overpopulation and objectivity; we've become herd-like. The only thing a wolf such as yourself can do is: join
other wolves and hunt in a pack, wear the sheep's clothing and exist, or attack alone and get trampled. But don't ever give up your reason for the
freedoms of a passive creature. We've already transcended nature, there's no turning back to it. Rely on your reason and intelligence to challenge
your fellow man— become wolf-like, prey on the sheep—the feeding grounds are abundant.

Poilice aren't perfect and there are power trippers and bad apples. However it would be ridiculous to think that we don't need the police. There's
just to many of us to not have some official body policing the laws. Also what's your other option? If the police start to fail and can't regulate
society then it's left up to the defence force. There's a very good reason why the police are parra-military and not military.

edit on
15-12-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)

I think most of the police are not needed. From the thread I decided that in my opinion, swat teams and intelligence type stuff are needed. But the
average revenue raising cop that we see are not needed.

And I would like to see the army used in a way that was some use to the general public. Why dont they police us? Why do we have such a waste of a
standing army that does almost nothing of use. The Armed Forces cost the taxpayer alot in peace times for little return.

Perhaps we have peacetime because the defence force is costing the tax payer alot. Take away a defence force and you get an invasion.

Text Perhaps we have peacetime because the defence force is costing the tax payer alot. Take away a defence force and you get an invasion.

Let it come.

And there have been periods through history when Rulers have decided to rely on mercenaries when needed. I think that is a more economical idea. And
you would not need conscription if there was an invasion. Who wouldnt fight?

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.